Bill Clinton calls U.S. healthcare immoral
my2hands
Posts: 17,117
Health Care System Broken, Clinton Says
By Janine DeFao
The San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday 14 April 2007
San Francisco - The dire state of the nation's health care system is threatening the country's well-being, former President Bill Clinton told a receptive crowd in San Francisco on Saturday.
"Our health care system is immoral because it doesn't provide health care to everybody," said Clinton, the keynote speaker at KCBS Health Etc., a daylong symposium at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. "It's wildly uneconomical. We pay more than everybody else in the world for less."
"It is sowing the seeds of its own destruction," said Clinton, who said health care is one of the top three problems the country faces, along with economic inequality and energy dependence.
Clinton was warmly received by the crowd, which leapt to its feet in the first of three standing ovations before he began speaking.
"I jump at any chance to come back to San Francisco. You've been very good to me," he said.
Like a patient professor trying to break down a complex issue for his students, Clinton used a plethora of statistics, and a touch of humor, in his indictment of the current state of American health care.
He said the United States spends 16 percent its national income on health care, compared with 11 percent in Canada and Switzerland, the countries with the next highest spending. That gap represents $800 billion a year, he said.
Yet the United States ranks only 37th in the world in overall health care, insures fewer of its citizens and pays more for its drugs, Clinton said.
Nearly a third of U.S. health care spending goes to administrative costs, the highest in the world, he said.
"We're letting the health insurance financing tail wag the health-care dog," he said.
Clinton, who has spent much of his post-presidential years working to address the worldwide AIDS epidemic, said American taxpayers spend $10,000 a year for AIDS treatments that cost $3,500 in other countries.
He mentioned the pharmaceutical industry's opposition to importing cheaper, generic drugs from Canada.
He said the industry wants people to believe that "if you take it when it crosses the border, you will immediately drop dead. It's the same medicine. (Canadians) don't drop dead," he said to laughter. "They've developed generic immunity, an immunity to cheap drugs."
Clinton does not deny that some Americans have access to excellent health care, saying the success of his 2004 emergency quadruple heart bypass surgery makes him "a walking miracle."
But he said his case is also an example that not enough is being done on the prevention side.
"We are great about treating sickness, but we are lousy at keeping people well," said Clinton, who also is working on the issue of childhood obesity. "We are running the risk of raising the first generation of children to live shorter lives than their parents."
Clinton said he hasn't totally sworn off McDonalds but has been only twice in the past six years, on what he jokingly referred to as "childhood obesity field trips." Worried about his cholesterol, he now avoids hamburgers but likes "those little fried pies."
Clinton - whose wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seeking the Democratic nomination for president - didn't advocate a solution to the health-care crisis but said there are several options.
While health care was the topic of the day, Clinton couldn't resist a lengthy answer when asked about Iraq by KCBS reporter Mike Sugerman, refusing to wrap up when Sugerman tried to cut him off.
"You asked me about this. You're going to get an answer," Clinton said testily.
He said the United States shouldn't withdraw immediately but should cease combat operations and implement a "substantial drawdown of American troops" this year.
Following his speech, Clinton stepped down from the stage and spent more than an hour signing autographs and taking pictures with people while others stood on their chairs, craning for a glimpse.
"He's always amazing because he has such a depth of knowledge on every issue he's asked," said Santa Cruz resident Helen Isherwood, who paid $75 for her second-row seat. "We so need a political hero, and he's it for the Bay Area."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/BAG7BP8VJV3.DTL
By Janine DeFao
The San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday 14 April 2007
San Francisco - The dire state of the nation's health care system is threatening the country's well-being, former President Bill Clinton told a receptive crowd in San Francisco on Saturday.
"Our health care system is immoral because it doesn't provide health care to everybody," said Clinton, the keynote speaker at KCBS Health Etc., a daylong symposium at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. "It's wildly uneconomical. We pay more than everybody else in the world for less."
"It is sowing the seeds of its own destruction," said Clinton, who said health care is one of the top three problems the country faces, along with economic inequality and energy dependence.
Clinton was warmly received by the crowd, which leapt to its feet in the first of three standing ovations before he began speaking.
"I jump at any chance to come back to San Francisco. You've been very good to me," he said.
Like a patient professor trying to break down a complex issue for his students, Clinton used a plethora of statistics, and a touch of humor, in his indictment of the current state of American health care.
He said the United States spends 16 percent its national income on health care, compared with 11 percent in Canada and Switzerland, the countries with the next highest spending. That gap represents $800 billion a year, he said.
Yet the United States ranks only 37th in the world in overall health care, insures fewer of its citizens and pays more for its drugs, Clinton said.
Nearly a third of U.S. health care spending goes to administrative costs, the highest in the world, he said.
"We're letting the health insurance financing tail wag the health-care dog," he said.
Clinton, who has spent much of his post-presidential years working to address the worldwide AIDS epidemic, said American taxpayers spend $10,000 a year for AIDS treatments that cost $3,500 in other countries.
He mentioned the pharmaceutical industry's opposition to importing cheaper, generic drugs from Canada.
He said the industry wants people to believe that "if you take it when it crosses the border, you will immediately drop dead. It's the same medicine. (Canadians) don't drop dead," he said to laughter. "They've developed generic immunity, an immunity to cheap drugs."
Clinton does not deny that some Americans have access to excellent health care, saying the success of his 2004 emergency quadruple heart bypass surgery makes him "a walking miracle."
But he said his case is also an example that not enough is being done on the prevention side.
"We are great about treating sickness, but we are lousy at keeping people well," said Clinton, who also is working on the issue of childhood obesity. "We are running the risk of raising the first generation of children to live shorter lives than their parents."
Clinton said he hasn't totally sworn off McDonalds but has been only twice in the past six years, on what he jokingly referred to as "childhood obesity field trips." Worried about his cholesterol, he now avoids hamburgers but likes "those little fried pies."
Clinton - whose wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seeking the Democratic nomination for president - didn't advocate a solution to the health-care crisis but said there are several options.
While health care was the topic of the day, Clinton couldn't resist a lengthy answer when asked about Iraq by KCBS reporter Mike Sugerman, refusing to wrap up when Sugerman tried to cut him off.
"You asked me about this. You're going to get an answer," Clinton said testily.
He said the United States shouldn't withdraw immediately but should cease combat operations and implement a "substantial drawdown of American troops" this year.
Following his speech, Clinton stepped down from the stage and spent more than an hour signing autographs and taking pictures with people while others stood on their chairs, craning for a glimpse.
"He's always amazing because he has such a depth of knowledge on every issue he's asked," said Santa Cruz resident Helen Isherwood, who paid $75 for her second-row seat. "We so need a political hero, and he's it for the Bay Area."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/BAG7BP8VJV3.DTL
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
So I guess we know he still inhales
I'll say they have... "Monica Samille Lewinsky (born July 23, 1973 in San Francisco, California)...you know the rest"
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Of course. Do you think only those who can afford your labor should have access to it? Or can I enslave you to mow my lawn or research my lab? Do you think only those who can love you and respect you should have access to your children? Or can I simply enlist you as a breeding machine?
Well, roughly 15-20% of them are already eligible for state funded programs (most of them children). They simply haven't been signed up. Another significant percentage is well above the poverty line and simply chooses not to purchase insurance. Another 20% of that number are not even American citizens and would likely remain uninsured.
The true number of people that would get insurance from UHC that do not have it today is much closer to 15 million people. That's 3.5% of the population. And I have no solution to that because "solution" would imply a problem. 15 million uninsured people isn't a problem. It's many problems with a diverse set of solutions ranging from social support to individual effort, and places in between.
How do you define "shotty healthcare"?
Of course, I'd disagree and say that it is your problem, at least partially, in that we all live in this society and that it's our responsibility to keep it healthy - both physically and economically. A response that'd likely be "as you expected...."
It's deeper than that, but I certainly agree that this, by default, is "Not My Problem".
Yes, I did expect mass-generalizations
It is not my responsibility to keep this society healthy. It is my responsibility to keep myself healthy. A healthy society can contribute to this. A society that treats property with no respect and bends the will of millions to the needs of a few is not a healthy society.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Every other Western nation has some form of universal healthcare. Are they, then, unhealthy societies?
:eek:. I see this as a moral problem. I know you and I have very different philosophical perspectives. I hoping you are just playing devil's advocate here.
Unless I am not understanding you, you are saying there is no problem with our current system. Here is some light reading for you.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-15-health-concern-usat_x.htm
WHO is a good source of info if you are interested in wading through all the material.
http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html
U.S. healthcare coverage is one of the most incomplete and unequal in the developed world. About 40 million are not covered by any health insurance. The richest 5% of the population account for 55% of total healthcare spending while the bottom 50% of the population account for only 3% of total spending. Furthermore, standard health insurance plans typically cover a lot less services than the most basic European health insurance schemes. Falling sick can quickly turn into a horrendous financial nightmare for most Americans and their families. For some people, taking care of one's health is simply not in the cards. Also, the U.S. healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, both in absolute and in relative terms. Costs have steadily risen quicker than in any other developed country since the early 1980's and worryingly spiraled out of control over the past few years.
Apparently Canada and the US are 30th and 37th, ranked by bang for buck, or what you get for your dollar based on mortality, infant mortality, people without adequate healthcare etc,etc.
Are you aware that a large number of folks that file for bankruptcy do so because of an illness or an illness of a loved one. And, a large majority that do file for bankruptcy had health insurance. You don't see a problem with this?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Well, it's bending the will of hundreds of millions to millions
Of course. As are we, in certain respects.
Let me ask you this....If you see an individual in immediate need, ie, a car accident, someone drowning, do you just pass them by with the 'not my problem' attitude? I don't know, I'm just having a hard time believing this is how you really feel. How can you watch your fellow man suffer and blow it off as 'not my problem'? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your position.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
No. That is my problem.
I'm not watching my fellow man suffer. My fellow men are living happier and healthier lives than at nearly any point in their history.
I'm certainly playing devil's advocate and not actually proposing those things. However, your reaction to those things should tell you much about my reaction to UHC.
This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is not a single problem with our system. There are millions of problems with our system, each measured by the individual's standards.
No, I don't see a problem with this. Here's why:
Health care is a service. It is certainly an important service, but it is still a service. Demand for health care services is at an all time high while supplies have not increased proportionally, meaning prices should be at all-time levels. Comparing US prices to nations with price controls and restricted markets is foolish and makes no sense. If I steal cars for everyone in my town and tell you that cars in my town are cheaper than yours, what have I proved about my virtues?
Your lingo above seems to assume that the top 5% paying for 55% of all services is a problem. How is UHC going to change that? The top 5% will pay for almost all services at that point, since they'll have to pay for nearly everyones' healthcare.
Of course healthcare is a large part of bankruptcies. Healthcare is very expensive. Expensive houses are also a large part of bankruptcies. Should we give away free mansions?
The point is, IMO, the government has the not only the capability, but the responsibility to provide healthcare to ALL of its citizens. Not just those who can afford it (which is becoming harder and harder for many to do). For the government to be fully capable of providing this, and not do it, is, in fact void of moral responsibility.
If we want to catalogue the "illnesses" of societies, sure. There's no sure fire cure for all the problems that will arrise in the course of history. But, comparitively, the U.S. isn't any more or less healthy than most of the West. A bit richer, perhaps, but with a currency that's slightly lower than the Euro and half the value of the Pound - currencies used in countries with universal healthcare, so an economic collapse isn't a guarantee if we implement it here. Also, our death rates are a bit disheartening when compared to the rest of the West. To me, it stands to reason that if we can help ourselves in one respect without tanking ourselves in the other, we should give it a shot.
Hehe
We won't have an "economic collapse" in this nation with UHC, just like you won't have an "economic collapse" if I rob you occassionally.
I don't really disagree with your core premise here: "to me, it stands to reason that if we can help ourselves in one respect without tanking ourselves in the other, we should give it a shot". My problem is that you're speaking in "we" and "us" outside your authority -- the individual wills of all involved. It makes me ill.
Huh? You have the capability to be a doctor who works for free. Why haven't you done this?
And where do you find this "responsibility"?
The government is fully capable of lots of things, yes. Capability and morality are not the same thing and a government, in and of itself, is not a moral body. The people that comprise that government and who shape it are moral agents.
The individual wills of all cannot be accounted for in any respect, let alone all respects. So our government tends to work on averages. We do it all the time - to lay roads, pay for the underprivilaged, keep up defense of the nation, deal with crime, etc. I know you don't agree with public financing of any of this, but philosophically UHC fits the mold of the things our nation does, socially. Stalwart individualism, while something that should definitely be encouraged and practiced whenever possible as a counter measure to group or state influence, isn't a tenable way to run a society.
UHC does fit the mold. Completely.
California Plan Could Cost State $12 Billion
By Sonya Geis and Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
LOS ANGELES, Jan. 8 -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) on Monday proposed a system of universal health insurance for Californians that would make the nation's most populous state the third to guarantee medical coverage for all its residents.
"Prices for health care and insurance are rising twice as fast as inflation, twice as fast as wages. That is a terrible drain on everyone, and it is a drain on our economy," Schwarzenegger said. "My solution is that everyone in California must have insurance. If you can't afford it, the state will help you buy it, but you must be insured."
Much of the opposition to Schwarzenegger's program, which requires legislative approval, is expected to come from his fellow Republicans, who object that the plan will be costly for small businesses. But the governor said California cannot afford not to do it. Nearly one in five California residents does not have health insurance -- a total of 6.5 million people, many of whom seek expensive care in emergency rooms.
Nationwide, the ranks of the uninsured are growing. Census figures show that a record 46.6 million Americans, including 8.3 million children, had no health insurance in 2005, up from 45.3 million in 2004. Among those who did have coverage, fewer were receiving it through their jobs as employers scaled back their health plans.
Analysts say the California proposal is illustrative of the resurgence of interest among politicians at all levels in expanding health coverage to the uninsured and that it provides fresh evidence that, with Congress stalled on enacting comprehensive health-care reform, the states are beginning to take matters into their own hands.
In the past year, Massachusetts and Vermont have passed laws requiring all their residents to obtain health insurance, with help from the state if necessary. Other states considering expanding coverage to reduce the number of uninsured include Washington, Montana, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Illinois.
"Health care for the uninsured is back on the agenda," said Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that researches health-care issues. "The governors are trying to lead the way, but it's also going to take national action to try to address this problem."
Schwarzenegger's plan would require everyone living in California -- even illegal immigrants -- to have health insurance, at an estimated cost of $12 billion. Individuals who refuse to carry insurance could face reductions in their state income tax refunds or the garnishment of their wages. All businesses with 10 or more employees would have to offer coverage or pay a fee of 4 percent of their payroll into a fund to help the uninsured buy health insurance.
Schwarzenegger also recommended expanding the state's existing program for children's health insurance to families that earn less than three times the poverty level, or about $60,000 for a family of four.
The governor also wants to force insurers to offer coverage to people with existing medical conditions. Currently many insurers will not cover older people, those with major illnesses or even people with relatively minor complaints such as asthma or varicose veins.
Schwarzenegger also would require insurance providers to use 85 percent of their premium proceeds on patient care.
The state would increase reimbursements to doctors and hospitals by a total of $4 billion. Money for the program would come from new taxes on doctors (2 percent of their revenue) and hospitals (4 percent), federal funds, and county funds that now pay for emergency care for the uninsured.
In addition to objections from small business, Schwarzenegger is sure to face opposition to taxes on doctors and hospitals, additional regulation of insurance providers and the extension of coverage to illegal immigrants.
"Imposing a new jobs tax on employers of any size and expanding costly government mandates is the wrong approach, one which will devastate our economy," the Assembly's Republican leader, Mike Villines, said in a statement Monday.
But Schwarzenegger said that while the plan will cost money, it will pump funds back into the health system because of the expanded coverage. "Everyone ends up with a better deal," he said.
Lee reported from Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010800865.html?nav=hcmodule
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
that is one pitiful, and weak analogy... mansions are not a need, decent and affordable health care is an absolute need. step your game up ffg
you act as if universal health care is unheard of?
some personal experience. a close friend of mine owns his own small business. he has a child and family he is supporting. insurance for him was WAY too expensive to carry, especially having to provide food for a family. so one day he gets hurt ar work, shoots a nail through his big toe. he goes to the hospital to have it removed. medical bill came, it was $10,000. he had to finance this, and is still making payments. we are talking about a man that has a family, and works hard, 40+ a week in the "richest country in world history" yet he has to struggle and finance $10k to have a nail removed. i think that is bullshit, healthcare and insurance should not be too expensive FOR ANYBODY. especially a productive person working full time raising a family.
Europeans get UHC but they also pay about 50-55% income tax. Granted they get like 6-8 weeks of vacation. It's a tough call. I'm not sure I want to give up 50% of my income so everyone can have healthcare. That may be callous, but I'm just being honest.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
See the article I just posted. I'd like to hear your critique of it.
Oh, I agree. Although, I really can't fathom why anyone would be against a proposed system that could potentially help so many.
And can you tell me why that is?
Please explain your analogy here and how it applies.
I don't look at health care as a luxury item. I think you should consider separating the two.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein